Evaluation of Constant Thickness Cartilage Models vs. Patient Specific Cartilage Models for an Optimized Computer-Assisted Planning of Periacetabular Osteotomy

Modern computerized planning tools for periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) use either morphology-based or biomechanics-based methods. The latter relies on estimation of peak contact pressures and contact areas using either patient specific or constant thickness cartilage models. We performed a finite element analysis investigating the optimal reorientation of the acetabulum in PAO surgery based on simulated joint contact pressures and contact areas using patient specific cartilage model. Furthermore we investigated the influences of using patient specific cartilage model or constant thickness cartilage model on the biomechanical simulation results. Ten specimens with hip dysplasia were used in this study. Image data were available from CT arthrography studies. Bone models were reconstructed. Mesh models for the patient specific cartilage were defined and subsequently loaded under previously reported boundary and loading conditions. Peak contact pressures and contact areas were estimated in the original position. Afterwards we used a validated preoperative planning software to change the acetabular inclination by an increment of 5° and measured the lateral center edge angle (LCE) at each reorientation position. The position with the largest contact area and the lowest peak contact pressure was defined as the optimal position. In order to investigate the influence of using patient specific cartilage model or constant thickness cartilage model on the biomechanical simulation results, the same procedure was repeated with the same bone models but with a cartilage mesh of constant thickness. Comparison of the peak contact pressures and the contact areas between these two different cartilage models showed that good correlation between these two cartilage models for peak contact pressures (r = 0.634 ∈ [0.6, 0.8], p < 0.001) and contact areas (r = 0.872 > 0.8, p < 0.001). For both cartilage models, the largest contact areas and the lowest peak pressures were found at the same position. Our study is the first study comparing peak contact pressures and contact areas between patient specific and constant thickness cartilage models during PAO planning. Good correlation for these two models was detected. Computer assisted planning with FE modeling using constant thickness cartilage models might be a promising PAO planning tool when a conventional CT is available.

[1]  M. Tannast,et al.  An Increased Iliocapsularis-to-rectus-femoris Ratio Is Suggestive for Instability in Borderline Hips , 2015, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[2]  J. T. Bryant,et al.  An in vitro investigation of the acetabular labral seal in hip joint mechanics. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[3]  M. Tannast,et al.  Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis--what the radiologist should know. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  Mehran Armand,et al.  Periacetabular osteotomy in adult hip dysplasia - developing a computer aided real-time biomechanical guiding system (BGS). , 2008, Suomen ortopedia ja traumatologia = Ortopedi och traumatologi i Finland = Finnish journal of orthopaedics and traumatology.

[5]  G. Deng,et al.  Effect of periacetabular osteotomy for acetabular dysplasia clarified by three-dimensional finite element analysis , 2010, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[6]  R. Ganz,et al.  A new periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of hip dysplasias. Technique and preliminary results. , 1988, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[7]  P. Zambelli,et al.  Simplified 3D-evaluation of periacetabular osteotomy. , 1999, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[8]  Ryan J. Murphy,et al.  Biomechanical Factors in Planning of Periacetabular Osteotomy , 2013, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol..

[9]  Benjamin J. Ellis,et al.  Patient-specific analysis of cartilage and labrum mechanics in human hips with acetabular dysplasia. , 2014, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[10]  G. Bergmann,et al.  Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  A. Phillips,et al.  Finite element modelling of the pelvis: inclusion of muscular and ligamentous boundary conditions. , 2007, Medical engineering & physics.

[12]  S B Murphy,et al.  Use of computed tomographic reconstruction in planning osteotomies of the hip. , 1992, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[13]  Li Liu,et al.  Computer Assisted Planning and Navigation of Periacetabular Osteotomy with Range of Motion Optimization , 2014, MICCAI.

[14]  Mehran Armand,et al.  Three-dimensional mechanical evaluation of joint contact pressure in 12 periacetabular osteotomy patients with 10-year follow-up , 2009, Acta orthopaedica.

[15]  Benjamin J. Ellis,et al.  Finite element prediction of cartilage contact stresses in normal human hips , 2012, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[16]  R. Richards,et al.  Analysis of cover of the femoral head in normal and dysplastic hips: new CT-based technique. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[17]  Frank Langlotz,et al.  Radiographic analysis of femoroacetabular impingement with Hip2norm—reliable and validated , 2008, Journal of Orthopaedic Research.

[18]  Benjamin J. Ellis,et al.  Validation of finite element predictions of cartilage contact pressure in the human hip joint. , 2008, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[19]  C. P. Duncan,et al.  Three-dimensional CT measurement of adult acetabular dysplasia: technique, preliminary results in normal subjects, and potential applications , 1998, Skeletal Radiology.

[20]  G Zheng,et al.  Biomechanical validation of computer assisted planning of periacetabular osteotomy: A preliminary study based on finite element analysis. , 2015, Medical engineering & physics.

[21]  M. Tannast,et al.  What Are the Radiographic Reference Values for Acetabular Under- and Overcoverage? , 2015, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[22]  R. Ganz,et al.  CT evaluation of coverage and congruency of the hip prior to osteotomy. , 1988, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[23]  Mehran Armand,et al.  Outcome of periacetabular osteotomy , 2005, Acta orthopaedica.

[24]  Zhenmin Zou,et al.  Optimization of the position of the acetabulum in a ganz periacetabular osteotomy by finite element analysis , 2013, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[25]  M. Tannast,et al.  Mean 20-year Followup of Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy , 2008, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[26]  Benjamin J. Ellis,et al.  Role of the acetabular labrum in load support across the hip joint. , 2011, Journal of biomechanics.

[27]  Karen Steger-May,et al.  Radiographic Evaluation of the Hip has Limited Reliability , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[28]  G. Ateshian,et al.  Effects of sustained interstitial fluid pressurization under migrating contact area, and boundary lubrication by synovial fluid, on cartilage friction. , 2008, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[29]  N. Sharkey,et al.  The Role of the Acetabular Labrum and the Transverse Acetabular Ligament in Load Transmission in the Hip* , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.